reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

First speaker: Implant aborted baby parts into lab animals. You heard of that sort of research? Second speaker: We did an analysis a few years ago showing that over ninety percent of experiments with using human fetal tissue and putting them involved animals were funded by Fauci's NIAID. First speaker: Do you know where they're getting the aborted human fetal tissue? Second speaker: A lot of it is happening at colleges and universities that have affiliated hospitals that perform that procedure. First speaker: Madam Chair, I think Second speaker: we First speaker: need to look into that as well.

Speaker 0 asked about a report and how concerning it is, questioning whether “10” is the real number. Speaker 1 said the main concern is that the report “dramatically understates the problem.” They argued that analyses rely on doctors and that it was difficult to obtain autopsies during the pandemic. Speaker 1 stated that medical professors did not want to know, resulting in very few autopsies. They said NIH, CDC, and FDA reviewed 96 autopsies of children and identified about 10 cases they considered possible or probable. Speaker 1 then pointed to VAERS, stating there are almost 1.7 million total adverse events and 39,000 deaths worldwide. They said that of the 39,000 deaths, 24% occurred on the day of vaccination or within one or two days. They acknowledged FDA officials say VAERS does not prove causation, but said that if someone was perfectly healthy and died on that day or within one or two days, they would assign blame. Speaker 1 also said there may be cases where people were already in bad health and vaccination “tipped them over,” with death ultimately caused by something else. Speaker 1’s “bigger revelation” was described as information they said was not covered by mainstream media. They stated that on 03/01/2021, Peter Marks, head of CBR within FDA, was briefed that their algorithm analyzing VAERS safety would hide and mask safety signals. Speaker 1 said that 26 days later, Marks ran a new algorithm that unmasked 49 cases of extreme masking and 25 safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, Bell’s palsy, and different types of strokes. Speaker 1 said that in the next three months, similar data runs with the new algorithm showed more safety signals and more types of sudden death. They said the report described not “pin[ning] a badge” on doctor Anna Scharzman (identified as the dad of Speaker 1’s expert), ordering her to cease and desist, and continuing to use the algorithm the briefing warned would hide safety signals “to this day.” Speaker 1 said Peter Marks later went to work for Eli Lilly and claimed that the world is in denial. They stated they could not get the story broadcast or interviews on CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, MS Now, or CNN, and said they challenged Jake Tapper, sending the report and requesting an additional appearance.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

Speaker 0 argues that because it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued. Speaker 1 counters that there is immunity from liability dependent on there having been no fraud, and asserts that there clearly was fraud, so in light of that... Speaker 0 expresses surprise at known caveats to liability. Speaker 1 confirms the caveats and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0 asks how fraud is defined in this context, noting that drugs were sold with many studies but only one was good. Speaker 1 responds, “Let's try this one,” and discusses safety testing: the insufficient amount of safety testing before release was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA. The product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, with massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter (simian virus 40). The point is that safety testing was performed on one process, but people were injected with something different that had other components not tested, which Speaker 1 calls fraudulent. Speaker 0 asks for an explanation of the SV40 issue. Speaker 1 explains production methods: techniques to generate product using a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, allowing vats to grow the product before coating in lipid nanoparticle, with bacteria doing the work. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for residual DNA contamination. In this case, not only was quality control poor, but there was a much more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. As a result, vials given to Kevin McKernan, containing material actually injected into people, showed DNA contamination across the board. Speaker 1 states that leftover DNA includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is carcinogenic. This promoter is left over in vials from shots actually injected into people, implying that the claims about the potential for mRNA shots to integrate into the genome were incorrect. Speaker 1 asserts that there is DNA in the vials, not just some old DNA, and that it includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. Therefore, Speaker 1 concludes, this seems to be clear fraud: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing conducted with a product produced by a different process.

Speaker 0 questions understanding of vaccine causing myocarditis, mentioning Pfizer's awareness. Speaker 1 doubts if vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before market release. Speaker 0 believes vaccination was optional, not forced.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including all clinical trials done by medical companies before they requested marketing authorization for the green certificate. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how tests for the vaccine began so soon after the December 2019 emergence of COVID-19, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also asked the CEO of Moderna how they submitted trials since 2017, years before the virus was discovered in the winter of 2019. The speaker states that the CEO of Moderna did not answer how this was possible. The speaker says these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is vaccinated, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are not. Speaker 1 explains that they advised their family and loved ones against getting vaccinated because they believed the vaccine was experimental, not tested on humans, and had concerns about the company behind it. They also mention that most vaccines typically take several years to gather safety data before approval. Speaker 1 expresses their intuition that Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine development initiative, seemed rushed and lacking in safety protocols. However, Speaker 1 did not anticipate the widespread propaganda campaign promoting vaccination, and they were horrified to see everyone around them rushing to get vaccinated without proper testing.

Speaker 1 questions the trustworthiness of Pfizer due to their history of criminal fines and unethical practices. They ask how it is considered anti-science to question a company that has been caught bribing physicians and manipulating test results, resulting in a $2.3 billion fine. Speaker 0 acknowledges the comment but asks to continue the presentation before addressing the questions. Speaker 1 insists that their questions won't be answered and mentions having four questions. Speaker 0 tries to locate a lost ring. The transcript ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

The Pfizer COVID vaccine was not tested for its ability to stop the transmission of the virus before it entered the market. The speaker acknowledges that they had to work quickly to understand the situation and move at the speed of science.

Speaker 0: They argue that because the vaccine is classified as such, they don’t have to worry about being sued. They claim immunity from liability is dependent on there being no fraud, and there clearly was fraud. Speaker 1: They say there is fraud. They note that immunity from liability depends on fraud, and in light of that, it matters. They explain that there was fraud. Speaker 0: Expresses surprise and asks for caveats about fraud. Acknowledges there were caveats. Speaker 1: Confirms there is fraud and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0: Asks how fraud is defined, noting that drugs were sold with multiple studies and only one was good. Speaker 1: Responds with a point about safety testing for the mRNA vaccines. States that the insufficient safety testing was done before release, and that the product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids. There is massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter from simian virus 40. The point is that safety testing for one drug was completed, but people were injected with something different that had other components that were not tested, which is described as fraudulent. Speaker 0: Requests an explanation of the SV40 issue for the audience. Speaker 1: Describes production techniques used to generate the product. Explains that a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, was used to produce the product in vats, with bacteria performing the production, later coated in lipid nanoparticle. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for DNA contamination, with limits that cannot be exceeded. In this case, the problem isn’t only poor quality control but that there was a more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. Consequently, leftover material in vials injected into people contained DNA contamination across the board. Kevin McKernan tested vials, finding DNA contamination in the samples. Speaker 1: Explains that the DNA left over includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is known to be carcinogenic. Since this promoter is left in the vials from injections given to people, it challenges the claim that the mRNA shots could not integrate into the genome. While acknowledging that there are cellular processes such as reverse transcription, the speaker asserts that even the claim of “no DNA” is false because there is DNA in the vials, specifically DNA with the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. The speaker concludes that this appears to be fraud: injecting a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was conducted with a product produced by a different process. Speaker 0: Reiterates the conclusion: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.

Speaker 0 suggests that the ostriches’ ending was for a far more nefarious reason than a display of dominance, implying ulterior motives beyond a childish rivalry. Speaker 1 states that there are 36-plus worldwide patents and that this is not new research. They began collaborating with an unnamed individual and their herd of ostriches, aiming to develop an alternative to vaccinations by working with natural antibody solutions to create resilience in the body against virus threats and disease. They report significant success, claiming they already had COVID-19 and possessing scientific proof and data that they were able to neutralize the COVID-19 variants, not block them, but cure it, through lozenges or nasal sprays. This progress is described as very exciting. They further recount that the lab they were working with, Frederick Leduc’s lab, Immune BioSolutions in Quebec, was shut down immediately after their robust antibody research results returned. Leduc’s lab was said to have had to sign an NDA and was no longer allowed to talk to them. Speaker 0 then asks for the audience’s thoughts and whether they have been paying attention to the ostrich case in British Columbia, inviting feedback on that topic.

Speaker 0 describes finding vaccine insert materials with no printed content and says this is disheartening and “disgusting,” then adds that it “gets better” and that “more” continues to happen. Speaker 0 claims the CDC redacted every word of a 148-page study on myocarditis after COVID vaccination, and that when they asked to have the study printed, the entire document was redacted. They question what the study could have contained that required redaction and say this is “even scarier.” Speaker 1 says they are witnessing “an active cover up” of a “colossal consumer product safety debacle” affecting the entire world. They claim that in the United States the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and FDA are actively involved, and that similar actions occur in the UK with the MHRA, in Europe with European medicine agencies, and in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Speaker 1 states that each of these regulators requires product companies to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after a product comes out, describing this as a regulatory dossier. They say that if problems arise and are reported to a company (such as Pfizer), the company must report, compile, and produce a report that is made publicly available. Speaker 1 claims that for Pfizer, whose first vaccine was approved 12/10/2020, Pfizer did not produce a report after the ninety days. They add that when people asked what was happening, Pfizer allegedly did not disclose what occurred, leading to court proceedings. Speaker 1 states that the FDA’s lawyer allegedly said the dossier should not be released for fifty-five years, and that after pressure, the Pfizer dossier was eventually released. They then claim Pfizer recorded 1,223 deaths with their product within ninety days of release and recorded over 1,200 new adverse events. Speaker 1 also says the FDA worked to cover this up, and that FDA should have regulated Pfizer with at least monthly meetings and full disclosure about “novel vaccines,” which they describe as a “genetic transfer technology platform,” the first time human beings had been injected with foreign genetic material in world history. Speaker 1 ends by stating that two thirds of the world’s population took these.

The speaker questions how many people injected with mRNA products knew they weren't receiving a traditional vaccine, suggesting many, including medical professionals, are unaware due to the perception of conspiracy. The speaker claims there was a sufficient safety signal in VAERS to halt the rollout in January, citing almost 90,000 VAERS entries and nearly 700 deaths within the first month. They state that historically, products causing over 50 deaths have been pulled from the market. The speaker questions why the CDC, HHS, and FDA aren't investigating this data.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about a report stating that serious adverse reactions occur in 1 in 800 vaccinated individuals. Speaker 1 claims to be unaware of the report but mentions routine screening of literature for adverse events. When asked about Moderna's rate of serious adverse events, Speaker 1 cannot provide the information. Speaker 0 expresses frustration and finds it extraordinary that a multinational company cannot provide this data. Speaker 1 offers to provide the information later but states that no safety concerns were observed in their clinical trials. Speaker 0 concludes that the conversation is a waste of time.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They requested a clear yes or no answer and asked for the data to be shared with the committee. The speaker then stated that they did not have knowledge about stopping immunization before the vaccine entered the market.

Dr. McCulloch is asked to weigh in. Speaker 1 responds that he has presented at FDA advisory meetings and advised companies for decades on regulatory science. He states that when a product definitely results in death, and there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on this, the COVID vaccines in some people sadly result in death—some on the very first day they take the shot. He argues that this must be a black box warning on the product immediately. He says he checked the package inserts for the currently available products, noting that the ones Senator Blumenthal wants to pursue, and what the Governor still wants to pursue, and what the FDA still wants administered, do not have the word “death” in the package insert. He asserts that Americans are not fairly informed. Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 doubts that the COVID injection caused some deaths, and asks for his view on the numbers listed on VAERS (thirty-seven thousand, six hundred seven, per the prompt) and whether he has any science to back up his opinion. Speaker 1 replies that the best data are autopsies. He references the largest autopsy series published to date and notes that he is the senior author. He says they examined deaths after vaccination, had an adjudication committee and methods of arbitration to decide whether the vaccine caused death, and that in these autopsy cases, seventy-three point nine percent of individuals, it was determined that the vaccine was the cause of death. He mentions Holsher and colleagues, who are right behind him. Speaker 0 reiterates the FDA’s own laws, asking that this be included in the package insert, correct? Speaker 1 confirms, noting that in 2021 Dr. Carol Tocetta, working with the Daily Cloud, wrote about Peters’ marks in 2023 and asked, “where’s the black box warning? Where is it?”

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 tries to answer but is interrupted. Speaker 1 explains that according to regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to disclose them, even under the Bayh Dole Act.

The speaker asked why the FDA and HHS removed thimerosal from most children's vaccines but left it in a few. They admitted not being vaccine experts and offered to investigate and provide more information later. The speaker expressed interest in sharing the answer with the public.

A year ago, the speaker requested data from Emma, including clinical trials from medical companies before they sought marketing authorization for their products. Regarding Pfizer, the speaker notes that the company submitted a clinical trial that started on January 14, 2020. The speaker questioned a Pfizer representative about how Pfizer started testing a vaccine in January 2020, just days after the Chinese government released DNA data about the virus in December 2019, but the representative declined to answer. The speaker also mentions that Moderna submitted trials dating back to 2017. The speaker asked the CEO of Moderna how it was possible to submit vaccine tests years before the virus was discovered in December 2019. The speaker states that these are legitimate questions that people are asking, but unfortunately, the companies are declining to answer.

Senator Johnson obtained a large trove of FDA documents that were partially redacted and had been withheld from his investigation committee. His staff reviewed the material and quickly found the issue referenced in a clip: “masking,” described as an artifact that prevented the FDA from denying that adverse events were occurring. This masking problem was tied to a specific data analysis artifact uncovered by Bill Dumashell, formerly head biostatistician of a major corporation that performs this kind of data analysis. Dumashell had worked at the FDA with three others, and the transcript speaker says they were communicating with those individuals at the time. The transcript speaker explains that, after Tucker, who is described as a friend of the speaker, the senator’s staff discovered confirmation that Peter Marks (head of CBER) was made aware of the masking-related data analysis problem and suppressed the information. The speaker says Marks told the system developers, including Dumashell, how to overcome the masking issue, then shut Dumashell down and ignored information they uncovered when they corrected the error in the FDA’s data analysis systems. Speaker 0 asks whether there is direct evidence that Marks or others were coerced by CBER, Pfizer, Moderna, or others to keep the issue quiet, asserting that vaccine safety signals were swept aside and hidden from the American people. Speaker 1 responds that there is no “smoking gun” the speaker is aware of, while noting that such evidence could exist in archived, redacted, or withheld FDA emails. The speaker says the FDA asserts it disclosed everything relevant to the senator’s query but did not disclose many emails corresponding to communications between the speaker and the same team, which the senator allegedly detected almost immediately after the speaker began discussing the issue with him. The speaker adds that the emails may or may not be deleted, and that the speaker’s manuscript, “The Grift,” argues it was not necessary for there to be formal relationships. Instead, the speaker points to informal relationships, including a revolving door, stating that Marks took advantage of it by leaving government service at the FDA and then moving into an industry position afterward.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the lack of clinical trial data for the MMR vaccine. Speaker 1 insists that the vaccine was extensively tested before being licensed and that millions of doses have been used. Speaker 0 asks for proof of pre-licensure clinical trials, but Speaker 1 only refers to a book and mentions studies done in the 1960s. Speaker 0 argues that the data provided is not sufficient and questions the absence of a placebo group. Speaker 1 admits uncertainty about the inclusion of control groups but maintains that safety assessments were conducted. Speaker 0 concludes that no randomized placebo-controlled study exists for the MMR vaccine. Speaker 1 agrees to provide additional information after the deposition.

Speaker 0 says they found “information like this,” such as vaccine insert paper, with “nothing printed on it,” which they call disheartening and disgusting. They add that it “just keeps happening” and claim the CDC redacts “every single word” of a 148-page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. Speaker 0 says they asked someone to print the study, and that the entire 148 pages are redacted. They ask what a study does if “there’s nothing there,” and they ask what might have been there that required redaction. Speaker 1 says they are “witnessing an active cover up” involving “a colossal consumer product safety debacle” affecting the entire world. They claim that in the United States, the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and FDA are actively involved in a cover up, and that similar cover ups are occurring in the UK with the MHRA, in Europe with European medicine agencies, and in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Speaker 1 states that each company that puts out a product has an obligation to produce “ninety days of safety monitoring” after the product comes out, describing it as a regulatory dossier. They claim that if someone has a problem and reports it to a company like Pfizer, Pfizer must report, write down what happened, collate it into a report, and make it publicly available. Speaker 1 says that when the ninety days elapsed for Pfizer’s first vaccine approved on 12/10/2020, Pfizer “didn’t produce a report.” They add that people asked what was happening with the vaccine, and Pfizer allegedly would not disclose what happened, leading to a court case. Speaker 1 says the lawyer for the FDA stepped in to say they did not want to release Pfizer’s dossier for fifty-five years. Speaker 1 then says that after the plaintiff pushed, the Pfizer dossier “slowly” came out. They claim Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty-three deaths with their product within ninety days of release, and they say people called Pfizer in desperation watching family members die after taking the vaccine. Speaker 1 also claims Pfizer recorded “over twelve hundred” new adverse events and refers to “doctor Boden” discussing problems they say they have been grappling with. They conclude by claiming the FDA worked to cover this up and should have been regulating the company with at least monthly meetings and full disclosure about novel vaccines, described by Speaker 1 as a genetic transfer technology platform and as the first time human beings were injected with foreign genetic material in world history, after which “they were getting it full on.” Speaker 1 ends by saying “Two thirds of the world’s population took”

Speaker 0 asks if the speaker knew about stopping humanization before it entered the market and if they are willing to share the data with the committee. Speaker 1 responds that they did not know about it before it entered the market and had to move at the speed of science to understand what was happening.